RELIGULOUS--Bill Maher

@Blazenarrow,

Blazenarrow said:

Quote:

Yes, you are right, I read but 1/10th of the material in this thread. Sorry.

That's fine, but in the future, please refrain from making sarcastic and condescending jibes about someone you're not familiar with.

Quote:

Again, a silly error displaying my lack of thoroughness.

Apparently so.

Quote:

Ohhhhhhhh is that what Christianity is based on! :bigsmile:

Part of it. Since Christianity is not monolithic, as I've proven, it is based on a wide variety of things dependent on which branch and sub-set of Christianity one is discussing. There are hundreds of different sub-sets.

Quote:

Well, apparently you know a lot about Christianity and Catholicism. I admit, I know very little.

Fair enough, but if that's true, then you're hardly in a position to condemn it, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

But to clarify a point here, I never said that the old and new testament are what defines the underlying meaning in the VARIOUS BRANCHES of Christianity. I said that the two books define the underlying meaning or purpose of THE Christian religion.

There is no such thing as "THE Christian religion". -- That's the whole point of my continued arguments on this subject. Christianity is the name of a vast set of different belief systems. The only unifying factor in these is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Everything else is subject to interpretation by the various factions of Christianity.

To use an analogy, there is no such thing as "American politics". There are tons of different political belief systems within American politics. Just as there is no way to qualify ALL political beliefs in America by one, single system, so too is there no way to qualiify ALL theological beliefs of Christianity within a single system.

Quote:

Again, the ONLY reason why there are various branches of Christianity, is because various branches INTERPRET the bible differently.

Ultimately that is what I've been saying all along, however there are other factors as well.

Quote:

What makes the different branches of Christianity?

Interpretation of scripture, history (both secular and biblical), additional beliefs based on issues within each sub-set, popular thought (both secular and biblical), etc. There are tons of factors.

Quote:

Let me ask you a question, in the year 1 AD, following the death of Christ, did the Christian Religion actually exist?

Yes, by a small group of followers.

Quote:

What about the year 15 AD, or even 30 AD, did the Christian religion exist at this point?

Yes in 15 CE, yes in 30 CE.

BTW, I think it's funny that you're so anti-Christian yet you use the traditional Christian system of dates (eg. "BC and AD"). Very Happy

Quote:

In fact, when did ALL of Christianities branches come into existence?

If you had internet access, I'd suggest that you look these up.

Quote:

Did they all appear at the same time? Or did the various branches of Christianity slowly develop over an extended period?

Just like any other philosphy or theological system, belief sub-sets appear over time.

Quote:

The 'belief system' is based on the text contained in the bible.

No, it's partially based on the Bible. Some systems are based only on the Bible, others are not. Some are also based on a particular interpretation of the Bible, others are not. For example, some people are Bible literalist, others believe the Bible is metaphorical, others believe it is a combination of both.

Also, the Bible is not as simple as the 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'. There is also the Pseudopigraphia and the Apocryhpha. And there are also other books when are non-cannon which do not appear in the Apocryhpha. Each sub-set has it's own definitions as to which of these are relevent and which are not. Some are more popular than others.

Quote:

And again, let me ask you: When did Christianity first appear in history?

During the life of Jesus Christ after he reached the age of 20 and began preaching it. As far as the actual year by the Gregorian Calendar, that is still in dispute.

Quote:

Is it possible that Christianity, the religion, the belief system, actually existed before the new testament?

Before the New Testament was physically written? -- Essentially, the moment that Jesus Christ annonced himself to be the son of God, and someone listened to him and believed him, the religion was born.

Quote:

And if so, who were the Christians, or the people following Christianity?

You know, you could save yourself a lot of grief if you actually studied this subject. Smile

The first followers of Christ were the first Christians.

Quote:

So then did the 'followers' as you claim, compose the Christian religion prior to the new testament being written?

Yes.

Quote:

Did they compose the Christian religion 5,000 years ago?

The Christian religion did not exist 5000 years ago. It has existed for 2008 years (give or take 25+ years) when Christ was alive.

Quote:

"The Religion" is a set of beliefs, ideas, interpretations, and explanations of the world stemming from a singular source, the text presented in the bible.

-sigh- How many times do we have to go over this same concept? :brickwall:

Christianity is not simply based on the Bible. I've already given you tons of examples as to why this is the case.

Quote:

The followers were not able to follow, until they had something to follow. That being the inherent beliefs contained within the bible.

True, but that is not the only thing that the group of sub-sets that indentify as "Christian" is comprised of. Also, what point are you trying to make here?

Seriously, Blazenarrow, you might want to do some actual research on this subject before you attempt to debate about. I'm not saying that to be rude; it's just a matter of logic.

0 Replies

@boagie,

It seems that many people are suddenly jumping on the atheist attack bandwagon, if for no other reason than to claim the "rational" high ground in arguments. Unfortunately, you can't argue about religion if you have no knowledge of its history, teachings, or followers.

Many of the arguments against religion are quite naive. Christianity, specifically, is taking a lot of flack for being this great evil, when in reality, much of the great privileges we have today (like our current understanding of freedom/liberty, and the laws in our constitution) are based on religious principles. That "all men are created equal" comes from Christianity.

Arguments against Christianity that attempt to point out the absurdity in stories like some of Jesus' "miracles", or a virgin birth, or rising from the dead are just ridiculous. Of course we all know these things are absurd, and most Christians I know do not think they really happened. These arguments might hold some weight if the teachings of Christianity were supposed to be historically accurate. The bible is not a historical record, and though most scholars agree Jesus did exist and was crucified, there is of course nothing to back the other stories in this book.

Sure, there are some groups of fundamentalist protestants, almost all of whom live in the United States, who think the bible is literally accurate in all of its stories. These people are but a fraction of Christian believers. They, and the atheist attackers fail to understand the way in which prophets and wise men have always passed on sacred knowledge. This type of sacred knowledge has never just been written in plain english for the masses to read. It usually was passed down to a selected few by word of mouth, or if committed to writing, it would make use of allegoric stories with morals to communicate the meaning of the teaching. This can be seen in almost any document relating to spirituality, or philosophy in general. It is also seen in societies with the shaman or medicine man, who only passes on his sacred knowledge to the "right" person. Jesus spoke in parables, as maybe the Christian-attackers would know if they had ever cracked a bible.

I am defending Christianity because, apparently, no one else (or few people) on this forum will do it. No, I am not a Christian, or religious, but I guess I somehow reasoned that it is important to study religions if I want to know some of the history behind western values (which are very much Christian), and to understand what people are talking about. The attacking atheists it seems have never bothered to study the teachings of any religion, and this is unfortunate.

Whether or not God is real, the teachings of religions contain much wisdom. Sure, many people are convinced of Christianity's truth because they think that the miracles did actually occur. But I think more people are convinced by the message. The atheist attackers are incorrectly focusing on the actions of individuals and not on the belief system of the religion itself, as I have stated previously. If they had ever read the bible, I can't see how they could be threatened by the teachings of Jesus, which included such dangerous statements as, "love your neighbor", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and "what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul."

Yes, these teachings are quite the threat! A real Christian would rather "turn the other cheek" than fight, so what is there to be afraid of? Blame the bad actions of people on people and not on a doctrine of peace, love, and acceptance.

I always love the God - Santa Claus comparisons also. It is such a terrible thing that we teach kids that there is an "invisible man" up there, like we viciously lie to them about Santa Claus. And yet, what harm has Santa Claus ever done to any kid? We all learn "the truth" when we get older. The religious people with open minds will learn "the truth" when they are older also; that is, they can think for themselves, and they can question what they have been taught. Is it really going to harm children to teach them that there is a God who loves them, and to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" If they grow up to be thinking people, it will do no more harm than harmless Santa Claus, which is strangely compared to God in the Atheist arguments. Religion may be the "opiate of the masses", but that security is not such a bad thing for children. They have time to make up their own minds, and to suggest otherwise is quite condescending.

This leads me to my last point. The atheist argument always tends to be very elitist and condescending because the argument is that the "idiot believers", who, as one person stated in this thread cannot be saved without "years of rehab" must have something wrong with their brains. They must be crazy to follow a religion. If the kind, happy, infectiously joyous people I have met who proudly claim themselves to be Christian are "crazy", then maybe we need more of these "crazy" people around. Church groups at the community level perform an immeasurable number of good deeds all around the world. How many "atheist/agnostic clubs" do you see spending time in the community, cooking meals for the homeless, building homes for the poor, or donating money to charitable causes?

Please try to read religious works as moral stories, and forget about whether or not you believe God to exist. Then consider whether or not the moral of the story is a good one or a bad one.

I think Dinesh D'Souza, whether you agree with his other views or not, does a pretty good job defending Christianity:

Dinesh D'Souza Debates Christopher Hitchens .... Is Christianity The Problem?

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss, I agree across the board with your entire post. I wanted to focus on one particular point:

Pangloss said:

Quote:

I am defending Christianity because, apparently, no one else (or few people) on this forum will do it. No, I am not a Christian, or religious, but I guess I somehow reasoned that it is important to study religions if I want to know some of the history behind western values (which are very much Christian), and to understand what people are talking about.

That is the place my comments come from as well. I defend Christianity and religion in general because I find much wisdom within it. I don't agree with many major principles in Christianity but that doesn't stop me from realizing wisdom when I hear it. I also find wisdom in Buddhism, Sikhism, Confuscianism, Wicca, Judaism, and many other religions that I do not belong to.

I originally studied Christianity in order to be able to intelligently debate it with other people. And this brings up your next comment:

Quote:

The attacking atheists it seems have never bothered to study the teachings of any religion, and this is unfortunate.

The vast majority of attacks on both Christianity and religion in general come from a completely ignorant and uneducated perspective.

By the same token, the vast majority of attacks on sexuality, atheism, non-Christian religion, and philosphy -- by Christians comes from a completely ignorant and uneducated perspective.

If both sides would take the time to objectively examine each others perspectives, I think much more productive conversations and productive lives would be attainable by both parties.

1 Reply

@boagie,

I agree with you Octobermist.

Notice, I did say in that post: "If they grow up to be thinking people, it will do no more harm than harmless Santa Claus"

There is not necessarily a problem with religion or with atheism. People who fail to critically use their powers of thought exist within both religious and atheist camps.

0 Replies

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist & Pangloss- As someone who calls himself a christian, I want to thank you both (and some others here) for looking for good in christianity rather than only the bad. (Which can be somewhat of a task sometimes. :rolleyes:) Unfortunately, I think that we (as a society- atheists & christians) have been more interested in drawing up battle lines than finding common ground, which often makes productive discussion quite an uphill battle. :brickwall: I love to see what happens when folks lay down their axes and just have a good talk. Smile

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme said:

Quote:

OctoberMist & Pangloss- As someone who calls himself a christian, I want to thank you both (and some others here) for looking for good in christianity rather than only the bad.

You're quite welcome.

It would be nice, as you say, if people could simply discuss these issues without resorting to logical fallacies. The ones that have come up the most in this thread are: The Either Or Fallacy, the Hasty Generalization Fallacy, and the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

2 Replies

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist:

OctoberMist wrote:

Before the New Testament was physically written? -- Essentially, the moment that Jesus Christ annonced himself to be the son of God, and someone listened to him and believed him, the religion was born.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying here:

OctoberMist wrote:

the religion was born

What do you mean by "The religion"? Because you say here:

OctoberMist wrote:

There is no such thing as "THE Christian religion".

So when you said:

OctoberMist wrote:

the religion was born

do you mean something other than the "Christian Religion"?

Because if there is no such thing as "The Christian Religion", then how could it have began?

Again, look at what you are saying:

OctoberMist wrote:

There is no such thing as "THE Christian religion".

Then you say:

OctoberMist wrote:

The Christian religion did not exist 5000 years ago. It has existed for 2008 years (give or take 25+ years) when Christ was alive.

If you are using the term "The Christian Religion", but you say there really is not "The Christian Religion", then what am I to believe?

1 Reply

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist wrote:

NeitherExtreme said:

You're quite welcome.

It would be nice, as you say, if people could simply discuss these issues without resorting to logical fallacies. The ones that have come up the most in this thread are: The Either Or Fallacy, the Hasty Generalization Fallacy, and the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

It's funny how everyone resorts to logical fallacies accept you. You must be the arbiter of logic eh? :poke-eye:

1 Reply

@Blazenarrow,

Blazenarrow,

Quote:

First, let me say that I am not against Christians nor am I anti religious. I'm not condemning people for believing what they wish.

Ok. Then I take it you are retracting your ealier statements such as:

"you are probably religious (I'm guessing Christian), and if that is true then there is no reason to argue with you because to change your mind would take drastic measures, something akin to years and years of rehab."

and

"But things are changing friend, and people are starting to get help, and I've even met many recovering Catholics and Christians. There is hope."

Yes?

Quote:

Second, I will admit straight out that I may be completely wrong about all my thoughts, ideas and conceptions about not just religion and Christianity, but about everything I know.

Fair enough.

Quote:

I am not 'Proving' anything, or trying to 'prove' anything. I will make one suggesting to you though, since you say you've 'proven' that Christianity is not a monolithic religion, you might want to look into the rules of evidence in the pursuit of understanding. The first thing you will learn if you are a in the business of forming factual theories, is that nothing can be proven as complete truth. Things can only be disproven.

Ok. Then I have disproven your assertion that Christianity is a monolithic entity. Smile

Quote:

This definition is the one that we have been using in our arguments. Or, more precisely, the one that I have been using.

Quote:

I actually don't even think the word monolithic is what I'm trying to imply, if we go by the definitions used above. What I feel, is not that the Christian religion is completely uniform.

You would be correct if you believe this.

Quote:

Rather my intention was to express my belief that the basis of Christianity, the genesis of the religion, is of one origin.

You would also be correct if you believe this.

Quote:

You also validated this view by stating that as soon as Christ began preaching whatever he preached, the Christian religion began.

Yes.

Quote:

Now let me show you why I am not understanding your point...What do you mean by "The religion"? Because you say here:

OM: "There is no such thing as the Christian religion.."

do you mean something other than the "Christian Religion"?

Because if there is no such thing as "The Christian Religion", then how could it have began?

It was you who asked: "Did they compose the Christian religion 5,000 years ago?"

In common jargon, the term "The Christian relgion" as you used it here refers to Christianity including all of it's various subsets.

You are talking about two different uses of the term "The Christian Religion". When I initially replied to your sequentially previous comment (eg. the above text by me that you quoted) you were using the term, not as a classification of the religion (eg. "Christianity" as opposed to Islam or Shintoism); you were using it as a statement defining ALL people who identify as "Christian" as having the same belief system:

"The point he's making, is the CENTRAL idea to the christian religion in itself is a completely irrational concept. "

This above statement from you was in response to my comment that the movie was silly because it only focused on one aspect of Christianity, namely fundamentalism.

When you used the term "The Christian Religion" in that connotation, you were generalizing all of the sub-sets of Christianity into one set: fundamentalism.

However, when you used the phrase: "The Christian Religion" in this statement:

"Did they compose the Christian religion 5,000 years ago?"

You were not making a generalization (at least as far as I can tell), but merely using the term "Christian Religion" to classify the diverse system of belief as opposed to other systems of belief eg. Islam, Rastafarianism, Cao Dei, etc.

Two different uses of the phrase "the Christian Religion" each with different connotations in the context of the discussion.

See?

1 Reply

@Blazenarrow,

Blazenarrow said:

Quote:

It's funny how everyone resorts to logical fallacies accept you.
You must be the arbiter of logic eh?

Please show me where I said that "Everyone but myself uses logical fallacies".

I made no such statement.

There are many, many users on this site who have excellent logic skills. Just to name a few: Justin, Mr. Fight The Power, Ruthelesslogic, Pangloss, jgweed, Aristodler, and many others.

If you're frustated that I have caught you in your errors, perhaps making better arguments would be in order.

1 Reply

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist wrote:

Blazenarrow,

Ok. Then I take it you are retracting your ealier statements such as:

"you are probably religious (I'm guessing Christian), and if that is true then there is no reason to argue with you because to change your mind would take drastic measures, something akin to years and years of rehab."

and

"But things are changing friend, and people are starting to get help, and I've even met many recovering Catholics and Christians. There is hope."

Yes?

Fair enough.

Ok. Then I have disproven your assertion that Christianity is a monolithic entity.

This definition is the one that we have been using in our arguments. Or, more precisely, the one that I have been using.

You would be correct if you believe this.

You would also be correct if you believe this.

Yes.

It was you who asked: "Did they compose the Christian religion 5,000 years ago?"

In common jargon, the term "The Christian relgion" as you used it here refers to Christianity including all of it's various subsets.

You are talking about two different uses of the term "The Christian Religion". When I initially replied to your sequentially previous comment (eg. the above text by me that you quoted) you were using the term, not as a classification of the religion (eg. "Christianity" as opposed to Islam or Shintoism); you were using it as a statement defining ALL people who identify as "Christian" as having the same belief system:

"The point he's making, is the CENTRAL idea to the christian religion in itself is a completely irrational concept. "

This above statement from you was in response to my comment that the movie was silly because it only focused on one aspect of Christianity, namely fundamentalism.

When you used the term "The Christian Religion" in that connotation, you were generalizing all of the sub-sets of Christianity into one set: fundamentalism.

However, when you used the phrase: "The Christian Religion" in this statement:

"Did they compose the Christian religion 5,000 years ago?"

You were not making a generalization (at least as far as I can tell), but merely using the term "Christian Religion" to classify the diverse system of belief as opposed to other systems of belief eg. Islam, Rastafarianism, Cao Dei, etc.

Two different uses of the phrase "the Christian Religion" each with different connotations in the context of the discussion.

See?

I'm finished with this discussion, but I would like to close by thanking you OctoberMist. You have definitely reaffirmed my preconceptions and reinforced my original hypothesis. You've done well friend. I'll stay in the philosophy of mind section from now on. Smile

0 Replies

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist wrote:

If you're frustated that I have caught you in your errors, perhaps making better arguments would be in order.

Yes you did OctoberMist, you caught me red handed Surprised

And I am soooo upset!!! :whistling:

I will go explore the art of argument, and hopefully one day I can attain the advanced level of argumentation that you so possess. Laughing

Bye bye

1 Reply

@Blazenarrow,

Another one bites the dust.

1 Reply

@OctoberMist,

I was really looking forward to this film, but when he strayed away from poking fun at the fundamentalists, and starting asking profound philosophical questions to a Jesus impersonator at a theme park and implying that it helped in the argument of the existence of God, he really showed that he for one, didn't know the diversity in religion, or the views of theologians, or that he had never taken a philosophy class himself.

The Catholic guy in front of the Vatican dismissing a lot as provincial was interesting and deserved more screen time, and overall it is funny regardless of how strong an argument he makes.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi Y'all!!

Religulous, has anyone seem the movie yet, Bill Maher vs the talking snake. If no one has seen it yet this will keep until enough people have. Should be great fun!!

Bill Maher vs. the "talking snake" - Beyond the Multiplex - Salon.com

It seems like your major target in this movie are the religious extremists, those who belong to the fundamentalist camps of various different religions.
That's not really true, that's not really true. I mean, take Sen. Pryor - I don't think he'd consider himself a fundamentalist. I think he's like a majority of Americans. I mean, 60 percent of Americans believe the Noah's ark story to be literally true. To me, that's mainstream. When people say, "You're going after extremists," I say, well, to be religious at all is to be an extremist. It's to be extremely irrational. Not that everybody believes in Noah's ark, or the guy who lived to be 900 years old. But even to believe the central story of Christianity - a lot of people would say, "I'm not like those kooks out in Kansas who believe the Earth is 5,000 years old. But I do believe God has a son, who he sent down to earth on a suicide mission, and he said, 'Hey, Jesus, I'm sending you on this suicide mission, but don't worry, they can't kill you because you're really me.' I, God the father - wink, wink - let's split up the work! OK? Because there's two of us, but not really! I'll go down to Earth first and I'll see if I can't impregnate a Palestinian woman so she can give birth to you." It's just as silly a story. We're just used to it.

BILL MAHER

This movie is funny as hell. Laughing

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

Sympathypains wrote:

I was really looking forward to this film, but when he strayed away from poking fun at the fundamentalists, and starting asking profound philosophical questions to a Jesus impersonator at a theme park and implying that it helped in the argument of the existence of God, he really showed that he for one, didn't know the diversity in religion, or the views of theologians, or that he had never taken a philosophy class himself.

The Catholic guy in front of the Vatican dismissing a lot as provincial was interesting and deserved more screen time, and overall it is funny regardless of how strong an argument he makes.

Didn't he also speak to a Catholic priest/scientist who was against the literal reading of the Bible?

2 Replies

@boagie,

I wanted to like Religulous, but it had one major problem--Bill Maher just isn't that funny. Many of his joke are just lame, and others are unnecessarily insulting. When he talks to the African American preacher he says something along the lines of (rough paraphrase) you grew up Muslim, you converted to Christianity, and when you pick out your clothes you do so like a Jew. Bill Maher is just too full of himself, and at times it ways too heavily on the film. With that said, some parts were funny, but the arguments presented are poorly constructed or nonexistent. Thus, it is little more than hohum comedy attempting to be a documentary.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

This movie is funny as hell.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

Didn't he also speak to a Catholic priest/scientist who was against the literal reading of the Bible?

That's what I was talking about.

1 Reply

@Sympathypains,

Sympathypains wrote:

That's what I was talking about.

No, not the part with the priest who didn't seem to really believe in the literal teachings anymore. I'm talking about the part of the movie when they were speaking on evolution and he was talking to a priest/scientist. You don't remember?

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

This movie is funny as hell.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

Didn't he also speak to a Catholic priest/scientist who was against the literal reading of the Bible?

You first stated this.

The priest in front of the Vatican dismissed Hell and such as just stories, and not literal.

Now you're stating this, " I'm talking about the part of the movie when they were speaking on evolution and he was talking to a priest/scientist."

You mean the priest / astronomer?

I only recall two priests, the one in front of the Vatican denouncing the literacy of the Bible and the Vatican astronomer discussing science and the bible.

1 Reply

@Sympathypains,

Sympathypains wrote:

You first stated this.

The priest in front of the Vatican dismissed Hell and such as just stories, and not literal.

Now you're stating this, " I'm talking about the part of the movie when they were speaking on evolution and he was talking to a priest/scientist."

You mean the priest / astronomer?

I only recall two priests, the one in front of the Vatican denouncing the literacy of the Bible and the Vatican astronomer discussing science and the bible.

Yes, that is the one that I'm talking about. I thought that referring to a priest/scientist was enough to discern him from the priest in front of the Vatican.

1 Reply

RELIGULOUS--Bill Maher

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know